It saddens me to see you do not understand your own
constitutional protections and are freely willing to give them away to another
person.

The right of due process is in place to protect you the
innocent civilian from unwanted government intrusion. Not to protect traitors.
But the law has to be applied evenly.

Let's say someone powerful in
the government suspects your father of doing some 'things' to children. Using
your own logic, the state can declare him a bad man without proof and can now
take unilateral action to remove him from society. Without habeas corpus, due
process, etc.

You're actually supporting and backing the positions of
Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro. I implore you to educate yourself.

You
also have a responsibility as a 'journalist' to report news in a truthful light.

Ron Paul is not wrong about this and is actually just saying that doing things
like this are against America's laws of due process because . It's true and it
makes sense. Maybe we should stay at war for 10 more years and waste trillions
more on an un-winnable mission? Seems to be what you want. Oh and by the way,
this is not about religious differences, it's about occupation.

Apparently if you do not feel the way the writer does, you are not a thinker and
are not ready for "prime time." My question: Has Al-Awlaki actually
killed anyone, or merely encourged killing? Should Palin have been executed for
the possible encouragement of people in America using force against our own
administration? Get real, Mr. Opinion!

With that said, I have no
problem with what happened. He may have been American-born, but was not really
an American, in my opinion!

@KM: Because it's defined as torture, and the US is against torture, that's
why. And there is absolutely no data - even though Cheney said it worked - to
prove that the practice provided any more intelligence than nontorture tactics.
In fact, there are high-up interrogators who have publicly declared that their
efforts through nontorture means provided much more meaningful intelligence than
that obtained through waterboarding. With that said, do you disagree with Obama
killing these folks or not?

Wow...really juvenile article. It doesn't take any intellectual honesty to
support the illegal but popular killing of an American citizen. It takes a
statesman to protect our right to due process in the face of popular opposition.
Ron Paul should be lauded for this principled stand in the same way that John
Adams is remembered favorably for his defense of the British soldiers after the
Boston Massacre.

By the way, journalists report facts. You have taken
the liberty of attributing to Dr. Paul opinions that he "probably"
holds or actions he would "most likely" take. In my opinion, that's
the very definition of yellow journalism.

Torture, don't torture, does it really matter? These terrorists have thrown the
rulebooks out the window.

This is what many people don't understand.
It's the way Muslim extremists have been raised and indoctrinated. We are the
infidel, the eternal enemy, and the greatest thing a jihadi can do in life is to
kill us. They can't be reasoned with, diplomacy doesn't work. They would gladly
exterminate every single one of us if they could, it's literally kill or be
killed. To stop them you have to play their game, go anywhere and do anything in
order to win. That is the measure of depravity we are facing.

We look
in our history books and see that the Japanese held the same attitude in WWII.
Every man, woman and child was willing to fight to the death in order to achieve
their objective. That's why we firebombed Tokyo, that's why we nuked Hiroshima
and Nagasaki. The only way to end this is to make them understand that we will
exterminate their entire civilization in order to ensure the survival of our
own.

I have wondered during this discussion (of killing terrorists who are U.S.
citizens), was all those Confederate soldiers that were killed in the Civil War
denied their Constitutional rights of "due process" per the 5th
Amendment? What about that handful of rebels who were killed during the Whiskey
Rebellion in 1794 in Western Pennsylvania?

VST - no, they were not denied their constitutional rights because there was a
declared state of war: declared by Congress as required by the Constitution, not
just started by a President without following the law. That's what Ron Paul is
saying - if we're to be a nation of laws, then perhaps we should follow at least
the major ones.

That's the problem. Killing terrorists or enemy combatants is necessary.
But there is nothing to "celebrate". One of the foundation of our
European civilization is some elementary respect for death, even the death of a
sworn enemy. Who thinks otherwise, belongs to the realm of savagery, dancing on
graves. Shame on you, Mr. Paredes!

'Seven years and five
months after the U.S.-led invasion, the last American combat brigade was leaving
Iraq, well ahead of President Barack Obama's Aug. 31 deadline for ending U.S.
combat operations there.'

I have noticed something about Ron Paul. He doesn't like Israel as much as most
other politicians. Whenever he says something that is a little out of
mainstream, big Israel supporters, like Michael Medeved, and Mark Paredes, will
criticize him as being out of the mainstream, not ready for prime time, etc.

It leaves me wondering, are these political hits that are being made
against him because he doesn't support Israel. Basically, the price a
politician pays if he stands up for US interests over those of Israel?

In terms of the issue at hand, my view is that this guy was at war with the US
so I think that it is justified, but I respect Ron Paul for making the stand
that he did. It shows integrity and that he is a free thinker.

Where is the objective point of view in this story? The whole story is
completely one-sided! Nowhere in this article does he mention the reasons Dr.
Paul gave for his stand on what happened to Al-Awlaki. Not to mention the
ridiculous inefficient background he gave on Dr. Paul. I am assuming you did
this to try and discredit Dr. Paul. You lack absolute logic in your article! Question: Since you provide a lack of evidence to support your claims about
his inability to handle prime time What then makes you so special or credible
that the readers should just take your word for it?? What makes you qualified to
deem Dr. Paul, who has fought relentlessly to protect the constitution and stood
firmly without budging on his values (that also represent the values this
country were founded on) for over THREE DECADES as unprepared or unelectable?
There IS NO candidate out there that could even come close to Ron Pauls
experience, knowledge, and squeaky clean voting record. I know this because of
something called RESEARCHsomething every American SHOULD DO before they vote
instead of swallowing this vomit they call news.

Yeah! Let's just send over a few hundred ICBMs to root out
the terrorists hiding amongst the millions. Those that die innocently are just
collateral damage anyway.

I'm assuming you are in favor of pulling
all or our troops out of the Arab world. Since the extremists over there can't
be reasoned with and don't care about diplomacy there's no point to us training
their security forces, building their hospitals, schools, bridges...spilling our
blood. We should also stop funding the Arab world with aid too, right? Which
candidate proposes these measures anyway? Just askin'.

Mr. Paredes,You are wrong on several accounts. Ron Paul is not an
isolationist, he is a non-interventionist. He did not say the fact that this
man is gone was sad, but the fact that we casually are accepting the idea that
the President can target American citizens for assassination without due process
is sad. If you look deeper than your visceral reaction, Ron Paul is always
talking about the principle, not so much the specifics of a given event. No
politician in America is ready for prime time, for clear headed thinking about
what is best for America than Ron Paul.

I agree 100% with author. If you'd defected during the revolutionary war you'd
have been treated as an enemy combatant. The same holds true of every war since,
up to and including this one. The world isn't a perfect place and rounding up
international terrorists isn't as easy as it sounds. There's no going in and
arresting international terror suspects. It puts lives at risk, but not yours,
so what does it matter - right?

To my knowledge Abe, there was no Congressional Declaration of War made against
the Confederacy. Could you please provide a reference?

There have
been only five formal Congressional Declarations of War in our history and the
Civil War was not one of them. There were certainly Declarations of Secession
by the eleven Southern States, which could be defined as being in rebellion.

Secondly, what about the Whiskey Rebellion? There was no Declaration of
War, but yet, U.S. citizens were killed by the Militia organized and sent to
quell the rebellion by President Washington.

Ron Paul comes the closest to be a constitutionalist of any of the highly
visible candidates. Of course he will step on some toes of those who have some
particular political ax to grind. I am not at all sad that this guy was
executed, but celebrating isn't appropriate because of respect for life, and the
fact that it is just an isolated instance, not a real victory in the war against
terrorism. And of course there is the due process issue, not be be taken
lightly. I also suspect that the article does not explain Ron Paul's full
explanation of his position. I'm not impressed with the article.

I think the thing that bugs me more about this is that Brother Parades is a
member of my High Council here in LA. I know he means well and does a lot of
work in bridging the Jewish and LDS communities together but this does not mean
he is correct on this issue either from an LDS perspective or a constitutional
perspective.

Our prophets have warned us over and over again
(especially Ezra Taft Benson), to adhere to the Constitution and learn it and
understand it and defend it. Its an inspired document that we are to fight for.
What happened is not constitutional in the slightest bit and we should be
worried about that. As an LDS member it saddens me when our own leaders do not
listen to our Prophets and stand up for our Constitution. Justifying the
killing of a US citizen, without due process is throwing out our rule of law and
placing the Constitution on the back burner while our government makes the
decision of who should be assassinated or not. This is not what are country is
about. We need to defend the Constitution!